Detailed Information on the
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Assessment

Making an explicit link between resources and performance in future budget requests.

Proposing a budget request to allocate funds based on listed salmon recovery goals.

Proposing a requirement that all states provide a 33% match for Federal funds.

Measure: Change in number of ESA-listed ESU's with stable or increasing trends per million dollars of program expenditure.

Explanation:This measure shows the number of ESA-listed salmon ESUs that achieved a stable or increasing population trend for each million dollars of program expenditure. Stabilizing and recovering salmon populations is a long-term effort that depends on the cumulative effect of many years of work. The fact that no populations may have stabilized in a particular year does not indicate a lack of productivity in the program. In 2004, 8 ESU's stabilized, bringing the total stable or increasing to 16 of the 26 listed ESU's. In 2005, no additional ESU's stabilized, so the total stable or increasing remained at 16, though an additional ESU was listed, bringing the total listed to 27. In 2006, no additional ESU's are expected to stabilize. In 2007, the target is to stabilize one additional ESU, for a total of 17 stable or increasing out of 27 listed. Expenditure numbers were derived by calculating the average appropriation (in constant 2000 dollars) for each fiscal year and the two previous (for example, the FY 2004 expenditure is an average of the appropriations for FY 2002, FY 2003, and FY 2004). This was done because 1) there is significant time lag between appropriation and result (this is especially true given the grant/subgrant structure of the program); and 2) this method of calculation smoothes out the variation due to sudden appropriation increases or decreases. Many factors unrelated to the efficiency of the program could have significant negative effects on salmon populations. These include naturally occurring events, such as droughts, or earthquakes, and human activities such as logging, mining, or development. These factors could affect the measure by delaying anticipated stabilization of salmon ESU's or by causing stable salmon ESU's to destabilize. These are factors beyond the control of the program that do not reflect on the program's performance. It is also important to note that when activities with the lowest cost and the highest return are undertaken first, unit costs of recovering salmon populations may increase over time.

Measure: Increase the percentage of ESA-listed Pacific salmon ESUs with stable or increasing trends.

Explanation:This measure is a contributing measure to the GPRA measure of the number of protected species that are threatened, endangered or depleted with stable or increasing population levels. Pacific salmon are the major component of the performance of the GPRA measure through 2012 and this performance is reflected in the targets for this measure.

Measure: Number of additional acres of spawning and rearing habitat (includes adjacent upland, wetland, estuarine, riparian, and instream habitat).

Explanation:This is a combined output measure for all annual output measures that contribute to acres restored. As additional acres are treated/restored, it will become more difficult to achieve restoration targets. This measure contributes to the long-term outcome measure of salmon recovery in that poor habitat has been identified as a factor limiting recovery of Pacific salmon and must be restored and protected in order to improve salmon abundance. Annual acre numbers cannot be linked to appropriated funds for the same year because many of the acres counted in the actual number were the result of projects funded in earlier years. *NOTE: The 2004 actual is an average of the total acres for the first five years of the program. Reporting of this measure has been shifted from a cumulative to an annual increment basis, and annual data for years prior to 2004 is not available.

Measure: Number of additional stream miles of accessible habitat.

Explanation:This measure directly reflects the program's ability to increase access to habitat for Pacific salmon. The measure is the amount of stream habitat that has been made accessible through the removal of stream barriers such as blocking culverts, or small dams. This measure contributes to the long-term outcome measure of salmon recovery in that innaccessible habitat has been identified as a factor limiting recovery of Pacific salmon and must be made accessible in order to improve salmon abundance. Annual stream mile numbers cannot be linked to appropriated funds for the same year because many of the miles counted in the actual number were the result of projects funded in earlier years. *NOTE: The 2004 actual is an average of the total stream miles for the first five years of the program. Reporting of this measure has been shifted from a cumulative to an annual increment basis, and annual data for years prior to 2004 is not available.

Measure: Number of additional watershed assessments that address viability and factors limiting recovery.

Explanation:This is a measure to gauge the program effectiveness at identifying those factors limiting salmon recovery and therefore allows the program to target high priority restoration projects and make most efficient use of available funds. The measure tracks the number of watershed assessments or plans that have been completed that address salmon viability parameters and factors limiting recovery. These watershed level assessments are then combined to develop ESA recovery plans for the species. Annual assessment numbers cannot be linked to appropriated funds for the same year because many of the assessments counted in the actual number were the result of projects funded in earlier years. *NOTE: The 2004 actual is an average of the total number of watershed assessments for the first five years of the program. Reporting of this measure has been shifted from a cumulative to an annual increment basis, and annual data for years prior to 2004 is not available.

Measure: Increase the number of stream miles monitored.

Explanation:Monitoring is key to evaluating success of the program and improving restoration techniques. The program requires that 10% of available funds be expended on monitoring. This measure gauges the spatial scope of that monitoring effort.

Measure: Percent of program resource directed at projects which address limiting factors for Pacific salmon.

Explanation:This measure will show the efficiency of the PCSRF in meeting its strategic goal of recovering Pacific salmon. The measure is affected by how much habitat work is directed at major habitat limiting factors and how much effort is directed away from enhancement activities.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) program is to ensure the sustainability of naturally-spawning Pacific salmonids through the restoration of habitat and improving and increasing the number of fish passages.

Evidence: The program was initially authorized in FY2000 appropriations. This authorization was in response to the Endangered Species Act listings of Pacific salmon and Steelhead in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California and the signing of the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty and related agreements. The FY2001Appropriation reference is (P.L. 106-553, page 110): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ553.106.pdf. The 2004 authorization included Idaho as a program participant for the first time.(P.L. 108-199): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108YYeMGv:e215480. The PCSRF Performance framework outlines the goals of the PCSRF program:: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The PCSRF was initially developed in response to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of Pacific salmon and steelhead as well as forgone domestic harvest resulting from the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty agreements with Canada. Currently 16 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific salmon and 10 Distinct Population Segments of Steelhead are listed under the ESA. In all cases, habitat was identified as a factor limiting recovery of these species when they were listed and remains as a factor limiting recovery today. Without improved habitat, salmon productivity will remain below levels necessary for recovery. While many salmon and steelhead stocks have shown signs of improvement since listing, none has improved to a level that would warrant de-listing.

Evidence: The most recent status reviews of all 26 listed Pacific salmon and steelhead identify habitat as a factor limiting the recovery of the species. Habitat protection and recovery remains a critical need for salmon and steelhead recovery in the Pacific Northwest and California. The 2005 and 2006 PCSRF reports to Congress include information on the current status of the listed salmon and steelhead and efforts taken through PCSRF to achieve recovery. The reports also describe activities conducted by the program. The FY2005 Status Review for all ESA listed salmonidsis at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-Status-Reviews/upload/SR2005-allspecies. The 2005 PCSRF Report to Congress is at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: At the Federal level the program does not duplicate other activities taken to recover Pacific salmon and steelhead. The program is designed to provide funding directly to States and Tribes who then distribute the funding for local projects. This program design allows funding decisions for projects to be made at a State level with knowledge of all other funding and activities occurring in the same area. The PCSRF is currently enacted as a block/formula grant program and does supplement other efforts taken to recover salmon (state matching funds). The FY2007 President's budget request includes language that would distribute funds based on guidelines developed by the Secretary of Commerce. PCSRF does not supplant other funding streams. At a State level, NMFS has established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington as well as three tribal commissions on behalf of 28 tribes. The States merge the PCSRF program with State salmon funding initiatives to ensure all funding is focused on salmon recovery and distributed in a way that addresses priorities at the local level across the West Coast. This evaluation eliminates the potential to fund duplicate projects as all projects are evaluated at the same time by the same entity.

Evidence: State and tribal processes and criteria for funding projects are set forth in Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with NOAA. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm. These MOUs are binding as they are part of the grant instrument with States and tribes.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is making successful progress in achieving its long-term and annual goals within the current program structure. The current process of distributing funds through states and tribes to local entities who carry out restoration work is very efficient because it allows all projects at a local level to be prioritized together and allows one process for all State and Federal dollars to be distributed at the same time. The direct funding of large State and Tribal grants eliminates redundancy and minimizes the amount of Federal dollars needed for program administration. The PCSRF is currently enacted as a block/formula grant program and does supplement other efforts taken to recover salmon (state matching funds). The FY2007 President's budget request includes language that would distribute funds based on guidelines developed by the Secretary of Commerce. Funding of species recovery through a regulatory means would be less effective, as there would be no means for achieving recovery actions on private lands, where many of the species reside

Evidence: The program's effectiveness hinges on the coordinated distribution of funds through states and tribal processes. These processes ensure that only the highest priority actions are completed and that those actions meet the needs of Federal Tribal, State, and local participants. In many cases, PCSRF funds are the only available funding for local entities and private landowners to complete recovery actions. Additional evidence inlcudes a description of state processes in the 2005 PCSRF report to congress: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm, and the the FY2007 budget request language.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The intent of the PCSRF is to engage local solutions to salmon recovery. However, Congress has designated approximately one quarter of program funds for areas without ESA-listed salmon stocks. Currently, MOU's with four states require a minimum of 25% matching funds. The President's budget request for the past two years has included language that would require all state participants to provide 33% matching funds. This provision has not been enacted by Congress.

Evidence: The FY2007 President's Budget Request highlights the match requirement and program targeting. State and tribal processes and criteria for funding projects are set forth in Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with NOAA. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm. The program efficiency performance measure is to target 70% of current program resources at the highest priority habitat limiting factors, or at actions completed in support of work on habitat limiting factors

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has three long-term performance measures, the first of which is an outcome measure: 1) Increase the number of ESA listed salmon and steelhead ESU's/DPSs at stable or increasing levels to 85% of ESA listed salmon and steelhead ESUs/DPSs by 2011, 2) Increase the acres of habitat restored or protected by 660,000 acres by 2010 3)Increase the miles of stream made accessible to salmon and steelhead by 6,707 miles by 2010 The salmon recovery performance measure represents the overarching outcome of the program, while the habitat performance measures represent the outcome of the program's primary function. Measures 2 through 3 above contribute to the long-term measure of salmon recovery in that habitat must be restored, protected, and made accessible to achieve salmon recovery.

Evidence: The PCSRF Performance framework describes the entire performance monitoring framework for the program, including inputs, outputs, outcomes and efficiency measures. It is available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has set ambitious targets for its long-term measures. The PCSRF has tied its performance to the overall outcome of ESA listed salmon recovery. This is very difficult, given the factors other than habitat that affect salmon and steelhead. However, it is appropriate given the overall goal of the program. The targets are ambitious in that they strive for continued improvement in salmon populations, even in the face of uncertain future ocean conditions and diminished funding. The slight drop projected for 2006 is due to a new listing, which increased the baseline number of ESUs. The long-term targets to increase the amount of available spawning and rearing habitat by 660,000 acres by 2010 and the annual targets of 50,000 acres per year are ambitious because as more habitat is protected or restored, it will become increasingly difficult to find additional habitat to protect or restore. The targets that have been established represent a review of the current trends in salmon abundance and an estimate of the expected future trends given life histories and expected project accomplishments. The targets do not represent a stepwise increase due to the variable life histories of salmon ESUs The targets to increase the miles of stream made accessible to salmonids by 6,707 miles by 2010 and by 500 miles annually are ambitious because as more habitat is made accessible, it will become increasingly difficult to find additional barriers to remove that are not cost prohibitive. Baseline data for the measures were established in 2003 and 2004. The long-term habitat measure targets were set based on accomplishments through 2005 and factoring in efficiency improvements that are planned over the next 5 years.

Evidence: The PCSRF Performance framework describes the entire performance monitoring framework for the program, including inputs, outputs, outcomes and efficiency measures. It is available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf. The performance measures tab also contains performance measures and targets.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has a total of four annual performance measures. These measures are: 1) The acres of habitat restored or protected 2) The miles of stream made accessible to salmon and steelhead, 3) The number of watershed plans completed, 4) The miles of stream monitored Measures 1 through 4 above contribute to the long-term outcome measure of salmon recovery in a sequential manner: Plans must be completed to identify priorities and project locations (measure 3); habitat must be restored, protected and made accessible (projects are completed based on plans) (measures 1 and 2); and monitoring and evaluation must be conducted to provide feedback on program activities (measure 4). Until habitat is restored (the output), salmon recovery (the outcome) will not be achieved.

Evidence: The PCSRF Performance framework describes the entire performance monitoring framework for the program, including inputs, outputs, outcomes and efficiency measures. It is available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The target to increase the amount of available spawning and rearing habitat by 50,000 acres annually is ambitious because as more habitat is protected or restored, it will become increasingly difficult to find additional habitat to protect or restore, costs of land acquisition alone will be a driving factor in this shift. The target to increase the miles of stream made accessible to salmonids by 500 miles annually is ambitious because as more habitat is made accessible, it will become increasingly difficult to find additional barriers to remove that are not cost prohibitive. Watershed plans will continue to be completed with an increased emphasis on California ESUs/DPSs in the years 2007 -2010. The program does expect a decrease in the number of plans that will be required after 2010 and will adjust performance measures for this item in years beyond 2010. The number of stream miles monitored will continue to increase annually as additional monitoring programs are put in place across the geographic range of Pacific Salmon. Over time, the number of miles monitored will be stabilized and a decreased amount of resources will be required to maintain monitoring efforts. The annual habitat measure targets were set based on a review of historic performance and estimates of what might be accomplished given requested funding levels.

Evidence: PCSRF Performance framework: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All grant recipients, sub-grantees, and partners are committed to achieving the overall program goal of sustainable salmon and steelhead and to report progress towards the program goals and performance measures. However, those areas without ESA-listed salmon are unable to contribute to achieving the primary program goal of salmon recovery. The MOUs, which are incorporated as part of each grant agreement, require performance reporting on a quarterly basis.

Evidence: The MOUs with program partners describe the reporting requirements. All partners agree to follow the performance reporting framework. Both the MOUs and the performance framework can be accessed from the PCSRF website at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF . Sub-grantee and contractor support of program goals are indicated in sub-grant and contractor documents and in PCSRF workshop reports which can be accessed at the PCSRF website at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program initiated an independent review focused on the effectiveness at achieving program goals in spring 2005. The review concludes that the program is making sufficient progress towards its habitat goals and also made recommendations for program improvement, including prioritization of other program activities and an increased emphasis on monitoring and evaluation of program effectiveness. This review was of sufficient scope and quality to provide rigorous information on the effectiveness of the program at achieving program goals. The independent review was conducted by a third party and addressed all aspects of program performance. The program has also scheduled a review of the PCSRF to outline future needs and methods for program improvement. This review will commence in the fall of 2006 and will be completed within one year. Following completion of this review, the program will adopt procedures to ensure regular evaluations on a 3-5 year schedule or as needed. Based on the independent review, the completion of the OMB PART review and finally the upcoming NOAA review, the program should have enough information to identify any further strategic deficiencies and develop a robust plan for future program management.

Evidence: The review by Ross and Associates is the first independent review of the program that has been carried out. This review specifically addressed the criteria for reviews outlined by OMB and found that the program is making progress towards achieving its habitat goals. The review can be downloaded from the PCSRF website at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm . Through NOAA's budget planning process, the PCSRF was targeted for an additional internal/external review that would outline program requirements and methods for improving the program. This review will focus on all aspects of the program. This review is scheduled to commence upon completion of the OMB PART review to take full advantage of the PART recommendations

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Although the program has tied its budget request to achievement of performance and uses this information to gauge the outcome of various budget scenarios, specific performance measure information for PCSRF is not included in the budget request itself. The program also does not report all indirect costs in its PCSRF budget request. This is because the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is but one component of a larger Protected Species Program, which works toward the recovery of all species under NOAA's jurisdiction that are designated as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act or as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. There are currently 65 such species, of which 26 are pacific salmonids. The budget does contain a brief discussion of pacific salmonid recovery efforts, including a mention of PCSRF grants, but the specific performance impact of PCSRF funds are not called out separately from the larger Protected Species Program. Instead, this information is included in the annual Report to Congress of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. Nevertheless, budget requests are linked with performance goals at both a programmatic level and a project type level. For example, the program can compare the ability to achieve habitat objectives by shifting additional funding into the habitat restoration and protection objective. The program can also compare the impact of shifting projects within the habitat objective to those projects that address major habitat limiting factors for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead (improved efficiency); both of these factors are key drivers in the program's measure of efficiency. The program will incorporate performance information regarding PCSRF more explicitly into the FY 2008 budget.

Evidence: Internal planning documents compare the impact to the program at various funding levels. The FY2007 President's budget request is the outcome of those deliberations and represents the Administration's recommended program configuration. The President's FY2007 budget request describes a program to be developed that includes guidelines that would prioritize projects for ESA listed salmon and steelhead ahead of other project types.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Since 2003, the program has worked with its partners to develop a series of long-term and annual outcome, output, and efficiency performance measures; achieved buy-in from all program partners on the program goals and performance measures; and conducted independent evaluations of the program's effectiveness. The program has developed a performance reporting database with baseline information for all projects, set ambitious targets, and is able to report performance since 2003. The program has also focused resources on priority recovery needs through the MOUs and the budget process

Evidence: The PCSRF Performance framework outlines the strategic direction of the program, including goals and performance measures. It can be accessed at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf. The President's FY2007 budget request describes a program to be developed that includes guidelines that would prioritize projects for ESA listed salmon and steelhead ahead of other project types. Actual evidence of performance reporting can be viewed through the PCSRF datasystem website: http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/PCSRF, and in the annual Reports to Congress at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Each state and tribal entity is required to update the PCSRF performance system database quarterly on activities funded with PCSRF dollars. This reporting consists of basic information on project type, location and funding, as well as performance metrics such as acres restored, miles made accessible, watershed plans completed, and stream miles monitored. Recipients are also required to certify that quality control has taken place and that data are accurate. NOAA collects information on salmon and steelhead abundance through its Fisheries Science Centers. All collected performance information is reported annually through a report to Congress and is used by partners to modify priorities and performance of the program. As an example, since the development of the performance measures for the program, many of the states have shifted their emphasis towards addressing those habitat factors that are limiting recovery of ESA listed salmon and steelhead and MOUs were modified to specifically address this issue for 2006 funding.

Evidence: The MOUs with the States and Tribes are the strongest evidence of the requirement for program performance reporting. The MOUs are available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm. The PCSRF performance framework outlines the performance metrics that are reported on to NMFS: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Grants and sub-grants include terms and conditions for accountability. All grantees must abide by the uniform requirements for financial management systems at 15 CFR 24.20 and OMB circular A-87. Grantees must provide semi-annual performance reports showing they met the terms & conditions of the grant. MOUs are incorporated into the Grant award so performance reporting is an accountable item under the grant instrument. The Department of Commerce conducts audits of grantee performance and has provisions for non-performance, these may include: suspension of the award, denial of eligibility for future awards, establishment of special conditions, or disallowance of costs. The Department of Commerce conducted audits on the uses of appropriated funds by certain grantees and subgrantees. These audits found that grantees and subgrantees are achieving performance objectives. However, they also found that certain grantees failed to ensure that their administration of sub-grants adhered to applicable federal cost principles and uniform administrative requirements. The following actions are being taken to improve administrative practices with the grantees and subgrantees in question: ?? They have updated their labor distribution systems to comply with OMB circular A-87. ?? Their accounting staff are providing assistance to fisheries staff on budget coding and other accounting related matters ?? They are reviewing personnel policies to include time distribution procedures ?? They are improving financial management policies and procedures ?? They are improving their property management systems ?? They have improved their performance reporting, to be compliant with the MOUs with NMFS.

Evidence: Evidence includes the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with NOAA: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm, OMB circular A-87, the uniform requirements for financial management systems at 15 CFR 24.20, and the audit findings at http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: During the past three years, 100% of grant funds have been obligated by the end of the fiscal year of appropriation. State and Tribal partners are prompt in distributing funds, once priority projects are selected through competitive processes developed by each partner. Grant agreements require reporting of performance on funded projects and certification of quality control of data. The Department of Commerce has conducted audits on the uses of appropriated funds by certain grantees and subgrantees. These audits found that grantees and subgrantees are achieving performance objectives. However, they also found that certain grantees failed to ensure that their administration of sub-grants adhered to applicable federal cost principles and uniform administrative requirements. The errors amounted to less than 1% of appropriated PCSRF funds. These problems are being corrected through changes in personnel, policy, and procedures related to grantee and sub-grantee labor accounting and property management systems. The program has recommended that less than $500,000 in grant funds be repaid as a result of the audits. In addition, the program has encouraged all grantees and subgrantees to become educated about proper grant administration procedures, and is planning to hold a training course open to all grantees and subgrantees regarding cost principles for federal grants

Evidence: All partners commit to the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with NOAA. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm,a nd the PCSRF Performance framework: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf. Audit findings are available at http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Program has adopted a new efficiency measure: Change in number of ESA-listed ESUs with stable or increasing trends per million dollars of program expenditure. In 2004, 8 ESU's stabilized, bringing the total stable or increasing to 16 of the 26 listed ESU's. In 2005, no additional ESU's stabilized, so the total stable or increasing remained at 16, though an additional ESU was listed, bringing the total listed to 27. In 2006, no additional ESU's are expected to stabilize. In 2007, the target is to stabilize one additional ESU, for a total of 17 stable or increasing out of 27 listed. Stabilizing and recovering salmon populations is a long-term effort that depends on the cumulative effect of many years of work. The fact that no populations may have stabilized in a particular year does not indicate a lack of productivity in the program. Many factors unrelated to the efficiency of the program could have significant negative effects on salmon populations. These include naturally occurring events, such as changes in ocean productivity, droughts, or earthquakes, and human activities such as logging, mining, or development. These factors could affect the measure by delaying anticipated stabilization of salmon ESU's, or by causing stable salmon ESU's to destabilize. These are factors beyond the control of the program that do not reflect on the program's performance. It is also important to note that when activities with the lowest cost and the highest return are undertaken first, unit costs of recovering salmon populations may increase over time. The main strategy for improving efficiency as defined by this measure is to increase the percentage of program resources directed at projects which address limiting factors for Pacific salmon. A greater focus of currently appropriated funds on major habitat limiting factors within those States with ESA listed salmon and steelhead will increase the overall cost effectiveness of the program by achieving a greater quantity of projects addressing habitat limiting factors for total program dollar invested. The secondary efficiency measure tracks the success of the program at achieving this.

Evidence: The FY2007 budget request inlcudes language that would improve efficiency of the program by targeting additonal resources towards high priority projects. The program effeciency meaure would track these effeciency improvements and the PCSRF Performance framework: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf outlines the overall goals of the program.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NOAA is the Federal lead for salmon recovery efforts and is responsible, by law, for recovery of ESA listed salmon and steelhead. Thus, NOAA is in the best position to collaborate and coordinate with States, Tribes and local entities on salmon recovery and restoration efforts. NOAA coordinates the uses of PCSRF funds directly with development and implementation of recovery plans. NOAA shares updated population status and trend information on listed species with the states and tribes on a real-time basis so that PCSRF priorities and funding approaches by state, tribal and local entities can accommodate species needs. This successful collaboration has resulted in a consistent, cross-agency, set of performance metrics for salmon restoration activities in the Columbia River basin (between NOAA and the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council), the use of the PCSRF monitoring framework by the State of Washington, and the use of ESA recovery plans and their related sub basin and watershed plans to coordinate distribution of Federal, State, and tribal funds for ESA recovery

Evidence: The State of Washington's use of the monitoring framework to track restoation efforts is the best deonstration of effective collaboration. The FY2005 Report to Congress describes the processes each State uses to distribute funds. These processes allow for the coordination of funding at State. Local and Federal levels to eliminate redundant funding. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NOAA follows prescribed Department of Commerce-wide financial management and accounting policies, procedures, and controls. In 2003, the Department received an "unqualified" opinion on the FY 2003 consolidated financial statements, the highest rating available. PCSRF planning and spending is done via annual grants and the PCSRF routinely monitors grant obligations. State and tribal recipients also follow strict financial management practices as part of their grant agreements. The Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General conducts routine audits of PCSRF grant awards.

Evidence: The FY 2003 Department of Commerce Financial Report, Performance Accountability Report (www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY03PAR444.htm) provides evidence of the unqualified audit opinion. Information on NOAA's and DOC's financail management systems is available at www.ofa.noaa.gov/~cams/documentation.htm, or www.ofa.noass.gov/~grants/. The annual NOAA Financail report and NOAA Financial Assisstance Award - Standard Terms and Conditions provide additional evidence.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Since 2002, the PCSRF has continually improved its management processes to improve program effectiveness. Specifically, through annual reviews and the 2003 PART, PCSRF identified four areas of management deficiency: 1) Grant funds were not disbursed in a timely manner, 2) The program did not have incentives and procedures in place to measure and achieve efficiencies, 3) The program lacked performance measures, and 4) The program had not conducted independent reviews. The above areas of deficiency were addressed with the following outcomes: (1) All funds are obligated in a timely manner (by the close of the fiscal year) and disbursed within 75 days of application, (2) The PCSRF performance framework and resulting efficiency measure are allowing the program to measure and achieve efficiencies, (3) The program has developed performance measures to gauge performance of the program and grantees, and (4) The PCSRF has conducted independent reviews of the program.

Evidence: Program-wide performance measures and metrics were developed in 2003 and 2004 and adopted in 2005. The program holds annual meetings with grant recipients to discuss past performance and methods for improving the management of the program. These meetings have resulted in the development of a performance monitoring framework, establishment of a project reporting database, revisions to the program goals and objectives, and development of an ever improving annual report to congress on funded activities. The PCSRF datasystem website: http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/PCSRF, PCSRF Reports to Congress: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF, and PCSRF Performance framework: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Perf-Framework.pdf. All demnosatrte program improvements.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The program has a very good understanding of activities conducted by program partners. PCSRF uses a central project reporting database for all grant recipients that is updated quarterly, annual program meetings to discuss activities, and ad hoc one-on-one site visits with grant recipients and sub grantees to understand program activities. NOAA's Northwest Fisheries Science Center also conducts research activities on a subset of funded projects as part of its research, monitoring and evaluation activities. The Department of Commerce conducted audits on the uses of appropriated funds by certain grantees and subgrantees. These audits found that grantees and subgrantees are achieving performance objectives. However, they also found that certain grantees failed to ensure that their administration of sub-grants adhered to applicable federal cost principles and uniform administrative requirements. Appropriate actions are being taken to improve administrative practices with the grantees and subgrantees in question.

Evidence: The MOU's with State and Tribal grantees require reporting pf performance information quarterly through the PCSRF database. Quality control of entered data is carried out by NOAA's Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center. The database includes basic project information along with detailed variables on each project. Annual program meetings focus on activities that have been conducted and improvements to the performance of the program. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center's Watershed program conducts research on PCSRF funded habitat projects. The PCSRF datasystem website: http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/PCSRF, PCSRF Reports to Congress: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF and audit findings http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/ all demonstrate sufficient oversight practices.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The PCSRF collects, compiles and disseminates grantee performance information in an accessible manner through an on-line database and accompanying website. Performance information is also reported annually through a Report to Congress on program activities. Grantees are required to update performance information quarterly. All grantee performance information is easily accessible to the public in both a detailed and summarized form.

Evidence: Detailed information on grantee performance is available online through the PCSRF database at: http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/PCSRF. This database allows real time queries based on project type, location, grantee and a variety of other variables. Summarized performance information is available in the annual reports to Congress, which are also available online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program recieves a large-extent becasue, while it is on schedule to achieve long-term performance targets, progress towards the long-term goal of recovering salmon stocks has been slow. The program has met all of its annual targets for the long-term measures for FY2005. Through FY2005, this includes 62% (FY05 target 50%) of ESA listed salmon and steelhead ESUs/DPSs at stable or increasing levels, protection and restoration of a cumulative 410,000 (FY05 target 319,000) acres of habitat, opening up access to 1,865 (FY05 target 1,620) miles of streams, completion of 236 (FY05 target 214) watershed plans and assessments, monitoring of 18,603 (FY05 target 18,589) miles of streams, and targeting 70% of program resources at major habitat limiting factors. The program is ahead of schedule to achieve its 2010 performance goals.

Evidence: See performance measures tab.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has met or exceeded all of its annual performance goals for FY2005. This includes 62% (FY05 target 50%) of ESA listed salmon and steelhead ESUs/DPSs at stable or increasing levels, protection and restoration of a cumulative 410,000 (FY05 target 319,000) acres of habitat, opening up access to 1,865 (FY05 target 1,620) miles of streams, completion of 236 (FY05 target 214) watershed plans and assessments, monitoring of 18,603 (FY05 target 18,589) miles of streams, and targeting 70% of program resources at major habitat limiting factors

Evidence: See Performance measures tab.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program is tracking overall efficiency and has documented stable efficiency for FY2004 and FY2005. Performance targets were only recently developed for this measure. These targets will allow the program to better focus efficiency improvements and document those changes in efficiency that may result from a changed appropriation and those resulting from internal program improvements that focus efforts on major habitat limiting factors. Through the MOUs with the States and Tribes, participants have agreed to the performance goals and measures for the program and therefore committed to target projects towards those that address habitat limiting factors. This focus will increase the overall cost effectiveness of the program by achieving a greater quantity of projects addressing habitat limiting factors for total program dollar invested.

Evidence: The percent of program funds targeted at major habitat limiting factors was stable from FY2004 to F2005. Under the FY2007 budget request, the program has targeted a percent efficiency of 76%. That improvement would come from the requested change in appropriation. The targeted improvement from 76% to 79% in 2008 will come from internal program improvements that focus efforts on major habitat limiting factors.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Habitat restoration and species recovery activities are carried out by many federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, the Bonneville Power Administration, and NOAA. Making a direct comparison among these programs is a challenge, as all have slightly different missions, objectives, and requirements. Many habitat restoration and species recovery programs from these agencies have previously noted this difficulty in their PART responses. NOAA reviewed eleven PART evaluations of programs in these agencies that have common elements with PCSRF. Several of these, including the Bonneville Power Administration, contained no performance measures related to PCSRF activities. Others contained various measures of acres of habitat enhanced/restored. In the absence of resource information pertaining to these activities, however, NOAA could not make a valid comparison with PCSRF's performance. FWS programs have two measures pertaining to species recovery; one showed a small decline from 2004 to 2005, while the other showed level targets through 2008. PCSRF's measure of stable or increasing salmon populations showed a large increase in 2004. While this comparison only looks at a very short time period, it suggests that salmon recovery is progressing at a comaprable, if not slightly faster, pace than that of other ESA listed species.

Evidence: Fish an d Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10001086.2005.html Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10003713.2005.html Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10000152.2005.html Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10003714.2005.html Bonneville Power Administration PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10000082.2005.html Bureau of Land Management Wildlife Habitat Restoration PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10000136.2005.html Forest Service Forest Legacy PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10001008.2005.html National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10001089.2005.html U.S. Geological Survey Biological Research and Monitoring PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10003721.2005.html Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10001130.2005.html Corps of Engineers Environmental Stewardship PART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10004362.2005.html Department of the Interior 2005 Performance Accountability Report Performance Data and Analysis for Resource Protection: http://www.doi.gov/pfm/par2005/par05_goals_glance1.pdf Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 2005 Report to Congress p.3: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The program has completed independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality and will continue to improve its evaluation procedures as the program matures. An independent evaluation conducted by Ross and Associates Environmental Consulting has concluded that the program is making sufficient progress towards its habitat goals and also made recommendations for program improvement, including prioritization of other program activities and an increased emphasis on monitoring and evaluation of program effectiveness. This review was of sufficient scope and quality to provide rigorous information on the effectiveness of the program at achieving program goals. The independent review was conducted by a third party and addressed all aspects of program performance. In addition, annual program workshops have been convened to review the PCSRF program, and it was found to be effective in achieving desired results.

Evidence: the report on the review of the PCSRF is available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF